Skip to content
James and Lynne Newman Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

James and Lynne Newman Foundation

Its FY2019 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$409k
Granted FY2019
8
Grants FY2019
3
States reached
$155k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2019.

Education$309kRecreation & Sports$73kHuman Services$55kHealth$18kAnimals$10kYouth Development$2kArts & Culture$1kEnvironment$585Other$0
02FY2019 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2019

  • Under $10k3 grants · $11k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $25k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $372k
$15,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION$154,739
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS FOUNDATION$154,336
PACIFIC CREST TRAIL ASSOCIATION$63,297
GENEVA NATIONAL FOUNDATION INC$15,000
TIME IS NOW$10,279
SAN DIEGO CENTER FOR CHILDREN$9,984
COVENANT HARBOR BIBLE CAMP & RETREAT CENTER$500
GENEVA LAKE MUSEUM INC$500
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY17–19, $45k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%SAN DIEGO CENTER FOR CHILDREN: $25k → 11%SAN DIEGO CENTER FOR CHILDREN: $10k → 11%SAN DIEGO CENTER FOR CHILDREN: $10k → 11%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

29%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$137k · 4 repeat orgs$333k to everyone else

4 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2019, 0 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
5

Total granted

$137k
$13k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+63%
+226%

Still filing today

100%
40%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2019, 22% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $320k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19
EducationHousing & ShelterHuman ServicesPhilanthropyAnimalsEnvironmentOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • PC
    PACIFIC CREST TRAIL ASSOCIATION
    3× · 2017–2019 · $73k · revenue +63%
  • SD
    SAN DIEGO CENTER FOR CHILDREN
    3× · 2017–2019 · $45k · revenue +32%
  • GL
    GENEVA LAKE MUSEUM INC
    2× · 2018–2019 · $1k · revenue +79%

Funded once

  • SA
    SHEDD AQUARIUM SOCIETYgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +67%
  • NS
    NEVER SAY NEVER FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2017 · $2k
  • GL
    GENEVA LAKE CONSERVANCY INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $585 · revenue +226%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association Inc

To protect, conserve, and enhance wisconsin's natural resources by advocating for and supporting county conservation efforts, for current and future generations.

Environment
2
University of Wisconsin - Green Bay Foundation Inc

The uw-green bay foundation furthers the mission of uw-green bay, a public university, by developing and increasing opportunities for students primarily in the areas other than those in which the state of wisconsin ordinarily makes…

Education
3
Gathering Waters Inc

Gathering waters (wisconsin's alliance for land trusts) strengthens land trusts to protect wisconsin's special places and grow healthy, vibrant communities. the stronger the alliance between gathering waters' staff and board members, land…

Environment
4
Lincoln Park Zoological Society

Lincoln park zoo is dedicated to connecting people with nature by providing a free, family-oriented wildlife experience in the heart of chicago and by advancing the highest quality of animal care, horticulture, education, science and…

Animals
5
University of Illinois Alumni Association

The mission of the university of illinois alumni association is to enhance and advance the relationship between the university of illinois at urbana-champaign (the university) and all its alumni; to inspire lifelong loyalty and pride among…

—
6
The Uc Davis Foundation

The mission of the uc davis foundation is to secure, steward and manage private gifts for uc davis.

Education
7
The Medical College of Wisconsin Inc

The medical college of wisconsin (mcw) is a distinguished leader and innovator in the education and development of the next generation of physicians, (continued in schedule o)

Education
8
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.

Education
9
Chicago Zoological Society

To inspire conservation leadership by connecting people with wildlife and nature.

Animals
10
Fund for Lake Michigan Inc

Lake Michigan is one of Wisconsin's greatest assets, and its water is critical to the state's future. The Fund for Lake Michigan is here to help sustain the Lake on behalf of the people and places that depend on it. Our goal is to have a…

Environment
11
Wetlands America Trust Inc

Wetlands america trust, inc. is a nonprofit organization formed in 1985 to expand ducks unlimited, inc's mission to provide leadership in the protection of the natural balance of wetlands ecosystems ensuring the future viability of…

Environment
12
Glacial Lakes Conservancy Inc

Glacial Lakes Conservancy, as a land trust, is a nonprofit organization that, as part of its mission, actively works to conserve land by undertaking or assisting in land or conservation easement acquisitions.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Geneva Lake Museum Inc; the most unlike its peers is Pacific Crest Trail Association. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

9 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 9 of the 13 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
8/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $154,739 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATIONUniversity of Illinois Foundation: $154,336 · EducationUniversity of Illinois FoundationPACIFIC CREST TRAIL ASSOCIATION: $73,297 · OtherPACIFIC CREST TRAI…+5 more: $3,700 · OtherSAN DIEGO CENTER FOR CHILDREN: $44,984 · Human ServicesSAN DIEGO …GENEVA NATIONAL FOUNDATION INC DAWN MALL: $17,500 · PhilanthropyTHE TIME IS NOW TO HELP INC: $10,279 · Housing & ShelterSHEDD AQUARIUM SOCIETY: $10,000 · AnimalsGENEVA LAKE CONSERVANCY INC: $585 · Environment
Education$309,075Other$76,997Human Services$44,984Philanthropy$17,500Housing & Shelter$10,279Animals$10,000Environment$585

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $154,739 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Illinois Foundation: $154,336 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPACIFIC CREST TRAIL ASSOCIATION: $73,297 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetSAN DIEGO CENTER FOR CHILDREN: $44,984 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetGENEVA NATIONAL FOUNDATION INC DAWN MALL: $17,500 over 2y, 12% of budgetSHEDD AQUARIUM SOCIETY: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGENEVA LAKE MUSEUM INC: $1,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetGENEVA LAKE CONSERVANCY INC: $585 over 1y, 0.1% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Gs Donor Advised Phil…Natl Christian Charit…The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management IncNY11.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization James and Lynne Newman Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from James and Lynne Newman Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 13 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on James and Lynne Newman’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home